Let’s get things straight now... first, I’m not saying that no fossil exists that you can fit into your puzzle;
So, you agree that all fossil support the model of evolution?
The right fossils, with the right features, show up in the right rocks in accordance with the predictions of evolutionary history?
I’m saying, and I believe most of the scientific world (that isn’t denying the reality of the situation that evolutionary science faces) would agree, “there’s not enough stand-alone fossil evidence, in and of itself, to hand down a verdict that absolutely confirms macro evolution.”
You're wrong about that.
Remember tiktaalik? It's just on of many many many examples.
Found by prediction.
That's slam dunk supporting evidence for macro evolution.
The only overlap of agreement we have here, is that I agree that the fossil record isn't nearly as strong and powerfull as some other lines of evidence, like the genetic record and geographic distribution of species.
The
ultimate explanatory power of the evolution model however, manifests once we put all those
independent lines of evidence next to eachother and see them ALL converge on the exact same answer. Evolution, evolution, evolution.
Can you present one body of evidence, supported by the scientific community, as a whole, that does?
I already did. You people aren't addressing it.
Tiktaalik. Found by prediction. A previously, completely unknown creature.
We didn't know of any such creature.
PURELY BASED on the evolutionary model, paleontologists predicted
where to find it,
what anatomical features it would have, the
age it would have,
the rock it would be found in.
All slam dunk correct.
How is that possible, if the model on which that prediction was based, was incorrect?
It makes no sense to find exactly that fossil in exactly that place, if the model is incorrect. Because without said model, there is absolutely NO REASON for that fossil to show up in that rock. In fact, worse even.... there is absolutely NO REASON why such a fossil would exist AT ALL, in ANY type of rock.
Yet, there it is. In the exact location where evolution expects it to be.
You can deny it all you want, but it won't go away nore will it stop us from bringing it up.
As you’re always saying, forget my personal belief, and let’s stay in the courtroom atmosphere momentarily.
Ok.
"
if tetrapods evolved from fish in the late devonian, we should be able to find fish with tetrapod features in the middle devonian."
Titkaalik is that fish.
Where is the solid mountain of ‘fossil evidence’ that connects the dots in such a way that would be unreasonable to deny (a perversion as you say), even without bringing in religious belief?
Already gave you one easy to understand example. Tiktaalik.
There's plenty of others, many of which have been posted in these discussions - you must have seen (and ignored) them.
Yes I believe God’s Word, and up to this point physical evidence is lacking that would counter it.
See, and that's your mistake.
One does not believe things "until shown incorrect".
That the bible is literally true, is not the null hypothesis.
That’s my point; they’re not.
That's not your only point.
And you're also drawing that conclusion for all the wrong reasons, while completely ignoring all the other lines of evidence which, as I said, are much much stronger.
And the fossil evidence by itself is already pretty strong as well.
Again, I have said (and enter my belief):
That's nice, but your beliefs don't trump the evidence of reality.
When the evidence of reality points one way and your belief goes in the opposite direction - then it's your belief that is incorrect.
So where you see DNA and genetic record as verification of macro evolution, I see it as one more method used by God in His creation, which confounds man's understanding of His work, and leaves God, God... and man, man.
This is our divide I guess.
Yes, our divide is that I accept the evidence and go from there.
While you accept a bronze age religious story and happily handwave away any and all evidence that doesn't fit that belief.
As you very clearly just stated.
That effectively renders your opinion on this specific scientific subject, completely irrelevant.
